M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

section 92C, the\narm's length price in relation to an international transaction 22[or a\nspecified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the\nfollowing methods, being the most appropriate method, in the\nfollowing manner, namely:\n(a) - (d) xx\nXX\n(e) Transactional Net Margin Method, by which,-\n(i) the net profit margin realised

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

Price under section 92CA of the Act on 30.03.2022. Several notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act to the Assessee, which have been duly responded to. 3.7 The TPO passed the order under section 92CA(3) on 29.01.2023, proposing an adjustment of Rs. 348,78,65,338 as follows: Nature of Sl. proposed TP Description Amount

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

147 of the Act. Section 144C of the Act is a\nmachinery provision which has been incorporated for the benefit of\nthe assessee including the “eligible assessee”. The non-resident\nIndian has been included in the definition of 'eligible assessee' u/s\n144C (15)(b)(ii) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2020 and therefore, the\nassessment proceeding in respect

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

price whichever is lower. As, there is no clarity on\nthe cost it is only fair that the Guideline value/circle rate is to be\nadopted. The assessing officer also in his order has stated as much\nbut has adopted a different value as according to him the assessee\ndid not cooperate during the appellate proceedings.\n7. We have heard

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

147 of the Act. Section 144C of the Act is a\nmachinery provision which has been incorporated for the benefit of\nthe assessee including the “eligible assessee”. The non-resident\nIndian has been included in the definition of 'eligible assessee' u/s\n144C (15)(b)(ii) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2020 and therefore, the\nassessment proceeding in respect

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 is only based on factually incorrect statement recorded u/s 131 which is not corroborated by any evidences. Thus, such factually incorrect statement cannot form a belief of income escaping assessment much less cannot be a sole evidence for assessment. 6.23 Further, he drew our attention to the retracted statement filed before the authorities on 14.2.2018, which reads as follows

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

price of Rs.150 crores as mention in sale agreement dated 01.06.2009. Hence, the base for fixing the value of consideration for the transfer of the asset was the year 2009 only, at which time stamp duty value per acre ranged from Rs.30 Lakhs to Rs.65 Lakhs, depending upon the survey numbers and the total value of the land transferred

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

147 dated 06.10.2021 was issued on the appellant by the assessing officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore. However, no response was filed to this notice. Thereafter, several notices u/s. 142(1) on various dates were issued and served electronically on the appellant. In compliance to the notices, appellant e-filed detailed replies on 30.11.2021, 22.01.2022 and 09.03.2022. The appellant

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

147 is income escaping assessment and 148 is issue of notice where income has escaped assessment as per the Act. In case of income escaping assessment the notice under section 143(2) of the Act can be issued by AO only if there is valid return filed by the assessee under section 139 of the Act in pursuance

M/S. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Price received Rs. 3,246.11 million Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs. 630.6 million 61. The DRP rejected all the contentions of the Assessee and upheld the TP order. The AO passed the final assessment order in line with the directions of the DRP in which the TP adjustment of Rs. 63,06,00,000/- was sustained and the assessee

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 37(1) of the Act, since it satisfies all the aforementioned conditions. vii. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: • Kanpur Cigarettes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 147 Taxman 428 (Allahabad High Court) • CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bombay HC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 43 Taxman 312 (SC) • J.K. Synthetics

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

price of Rs.145,80,20,000/- for SWD & ITeS segments and passed order. The AO after receipt of the TPO’s order passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. He proceeded to complete the draft assessment order. The AO added the adjustment proposed by IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2021 Page 12 of 61 the TPO and assessed income

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

transfer price as the arm's length price. Then to make a comparison of a horizontal item without segregation would be impermissible" 10. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court, the co-ordinate bench of Bangalore ITAT, in the case of Lenovo (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO [IT(TP)A No. 195/Bang/2022 dated 31.01.2023] held that if margins

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

147 read with section 144 of the act on 12/12/2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 2,20,00,000/. 10. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee is in appeal raising grounds stated here in above. 11. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the issue of notice under section